Indo-Aryan Invasion (focussed discussion)

Edwin Bryant ebryant at FAS.HARVARD.EDU
Mon Mar 2 22:15:15 UTC 1998

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Jan E.M. Houben wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Mar 1998  Edwin Bryant wrote:
> > Hock has consistently argued, for two decades now, that many of
> the non-IE syntacticaL innovations visible in IA that are SA areal
> features could quite reasonably have been internal developments.  The
> article above summarizes his position.  He mostly argues that there are
> alternative ways of accounting for such features apart from insisting on a
> Dravidian substratum. Hock, in his articles notes that internal
> development is a possibility, as have other linguists before him since
> the time of Buhler in 1864. So I would imagine an Indig-A view (if there
> were such a consistent thing) would argue along the same lines.
> With these comments, Hock's article has been drawn towards an Indigenous-Aryan
> view. In fact, Hock summarizes the major arguments of those thinking that Indo-
> Aryan is "subversively" influenced by Dravidian (in matters of retroflexion,
> for instance) and those (especially Hock himself) who argue for alternative
> accounts, such as a joint development and convergence. There is no indication
> that Hock wants to defend an Indogenous Aryan model. Rather, Hock's model can
> be called a "harmony model" of the relation between speakers of Indo-Aryan
> languages and speakers of Dravidian languages.

Hock is most certainly *not* an Indigenous Aryanist.  He has submitted an
article for the Michigan volume which I have not yet received, but which I
understand deals with the linguistic evidence relevant to this issue in
support of the standard model of Indo-Aryan linguistic incursion into the
subcontinent from outside.  Regards,  Edwin

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list